Apple and Microsoft colluded to hoodwink the computer industry into using UEFI where possible.
No, that wasn't it.
BIOS is early '80s technology. It was proving inadequate for Intel server platforms under development, so Intel created EFI, which they gave to the public domain, where it was developed into UEFI.
BIOS has a maximum of one MB of addressable memory, and is restricted to 16-bit operation. Access to hardware on the system is very limited. UEFI allows addressing the full amount of RAM installed on the computer, in 32 or 64 bit mode. It allows networking and diagnostics (or whatever else the writer of the firmware may wish to do) without a boot device being present or configured. It allows booting from GPT-formatted boot devices by specification (MBR tables being quite limited too; no 2+ GB partitions with MBR, and only four primary partitions maximum). Linux can boot from GPT volumes even with MBR, but Windows won't.
There's really no comparison, nor any reason for hardware manufacturers to saddle new PCs or boards with BIOS and all of its limitations. I'm no fan of change for the sake of change, or when there is no real benefit, but this is not one of those cases.
UEFI is supposed to make your computer safer from intruders. Actually, it makes computers with Apple Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows safer from alien operating systems.
That's not UEFI. That's Secure Boot. If you don't like it, turn it off-- most boards/PCs will let you do that. Don't buy one that won't let you turn it off. UEFI is okay; Secure Boot is okay. Secure Boot that can't be turned off is not okay.
Secure Boot has its legitimate uses too. I do have a problem with the keys being in the hands of Microsoft, but the idea of a signed bootloader that will halt the system if there has been tampering has obvious security implications. Rootkits can modify the bootloader so that they start before the operating system, hiding the presence of the nefarious code, and allowing it to do whatever its programmer wants it to do.
Having that code signed by MS, though, is asking for trouble, and certainly I'd rather have a means of self-signing an approved configuration and storing the hash for that in protected storage, but I'm no cryptologist. I do know, though, that rootkits are real, and secure boot is the only real defense against them.
I have not come across any way to put Offline NT Password & Registry Editor (Chntpw) on UEFI bootable media. Pity, because this is far and away the most simple way to reset Windows passwords and unlock user accounts.
I don't know why it would not work. If you're using Rufus to write the image, you will have to use a hidden setting to correctly write the UEFI and MBR boot configurations. I don't remember what the key code was; the readme should tell you. It's a bizarre design decision by the Rufus devs. Until I did that, I was having trouble getting a Windows .iso to work on my UEFI machine and my BIOS machine. No idea if that is what you're facing, but it's an idea.